This was an anti-white hate crime, they did admit. It would be difficult to do otherwise, given the killer’s digital trail of anti-white declarations, but they’ve managed to deny politically inconvenient motives many times in the past.

So this crime spree, they announced yesterday, was indeed hate, but it wasn’t terrorism.

Why wasn’t it terrorism?

The gunman worked alone, said Brian Levin, who holds the important title of director of the San Bernardino Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State.

In a sane world, it could be argued that many terrorists work alone, or work on a sliding scale of aloneness. It could also be argued that a lot of internecine crimes (black-on-black, gay-on-gay) are hate crimes. Most importantly, given the body toll, it could be argued that the vast network of criminal gangs who commit much of the bloodshed in America’s cities are, in fact, both terroristic and ethno-supremacist, just like the Ku Klux Klan, and they constitute the most prolific and only organized hate crime killing machine this country has seen in nearly a century.

But there’s no political return, or rather exactly the wrong political return, in arguing such things, so the hate crime experts pretend that they have arrived at scientific explanations that differentiate between gang violence and hate violence, and hate crimes and terrorism, and anything else to prevent people from looking at the wrong types of offenders and drawing the wrong types of conclusions about them.

Although presented as science, hate crimes analysis is pseudoscience, with made-up definitions and invented rules as ornate and disturbing as any other pseudoscientific racist rant. Hate crime activists, who answer to the title “professor” or “expert,” behave in ways that are both carelessly ghoulish and exquisitely political – an ugly combination.

When the call goes out that a hate crime has occurred, activist groups leap into action, fighting to get to the microphone first. It’s an ugly scrimmage, and lawsuits aren’t unheard of as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League and various directors of academic Centers of Hate Studies compete for attention and fundraise off the suffering of others.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is infamous for sending out frequent fundraising letters declaring this or that new “Rising Tide of Hate.”

The way to really succeed in the hate crimes industry is not, as one might think, to reduce hate but to manufacture more of it. The Southern Poverty Law Center is infamous for sending out frequent fundraising letters declaring this or that new “Rising Tide of Hate.” Somewhere in their palatial Alabama headquarters, there is a room filled with piles of literature illustrating countless “rising tides.” Most of this literature features white men in Klan masks, and the SPLC works tirelessly to promote the idea that white men are responsible for every alleged “rising tide” of hate, even if they are the victims of the crimes being used to promote the Center’s ideology.

Donald Trump’s face appears on all the most recent publications from the SPLC: it is currently de rigueur to blame Trump for the mere existence of hatred, even to blame him for acts of violence perpetrated against his supporters by people who hate Trump.

Blaming white people and Americans for acts of violence perpetrated against white people and Americans is a foundational methodology of the pseudoscience of hate crime analysis.

This morning, “expert” Brian Levin genuflected his two cents worth in the media to blame whites for the cold-blooded murder of whites in Fresno, announcing in the pages of the Los Angeles Times that the murderer was participating in “reciprocal prejudice”:

“We’re living in an era of violent reciprocal prejudice, and there are references on [the killer’s] website to Fard Muhammad, the founder of Nation of Islam, and Nation of Islam uses the term white devils quite prolifically, as did this shooter,” Levin said.

Continued below...

The only way to fix hate crime laws is to repeal them and return to the proper legal standard of equal justice for all

What is “reciprocal prejudice”? Well, it’s whatever Levin says it is, or more specifically, it’s one of the scores of garbage excuses tenured professors of hate make up to shift blame for violent acts committed by minorities onto society in general and even onto the victims of those crimes.

“Islamophobia” is another term tossed around to shift blame onto victims: whenever Muslim criminals attack and murder Americans, the cry goes up in hate crime circles to “oppose Islamophobia.”

This is grotesquely cynical, but the hate crimes industry is too powerful to face consequences for being cynical in this way. Guys like Levin dial in ugly stuff like this all the time, and the media still calls them to get a quote, and they still cash their taxpayer-funded paychecks and prance around at academic conferences pretending to be on the side of sweetness and justice and light.

But if you step back from their noise for a moment, what Levin really said comes into focus.

Just as their killer, Kori Ali Muhammad did, Levin blamed the four murdered victims for being white. This wasn’t mere garden-variety prejudice, Levin announced: it was Reciprocal Prejudice. Reciprocal means “in return.” So we have a tenured professor of hate blaming murder victims for causing their own deaths, on the grounds that the murders were “in return” for some hatred presumably visited upon their killer.

That’s certainly scientific if by “science” one means “racist analysis designed to project blame for violence away from the perpetrator and onto some part of society.”

Similarly, when hate crime activists start talking about the difference between terrorism and hate, what they’re really doing is trying to figure out the best way to make excuses for violent Islamists based on the material they have to work with.

When a black, Muslim, spree killer goes out of his way to make his intentions clear, as the Fresno killer did, the activists do cover-up where they can. The ultimate goal is always to project blame onto the right types of people – Americans, or whites, or white men – and away from perpetrators they categorize as victims of society.

Luckily, they get a big assist from the media in doing this.

As Jay Caruso smartly points out, the Fresno killer’s shout of “Allahu Akbar” was immediately translated as “God is great” in AP reporting on his crimes.

To put it another way, every time Trump raises his arm to wave at a crowd, he’s making a Nazi salute, but when a spree killer declares quite clearly that he is killing his victims in the name of Allah and black supremacy, some AP reporter is there to clean up the killer’s mess for him, whether he wants it or not.

You might be wondering what a “hate crimes scholar” like Levin would say about the San Bernardino killings in his own backyard.

Wonder no more: he blamed Trump. Speaking to a Catholic audience in the city last September, Levin pointed at then-candidate Trump as the cause of an “87.5% increase” in hate crimes after the San Bernardino massacre and an alleged increase in hate against Catholics, too. Why a hate crimes expert would be talking about other crimes when the biggest hate crime in years had recently occurred on his doorstep ought to be a mystery, but of course it’s not.

In the wake of San Bernardino, it was simply Levin’s job description to find a way to project blame for the murder of 14 innocents onto the right people: Americans who vote Republican. It was also his job to make excuses for violent Islamists, which is why he stood on a stage in a Catholic Church whitewashing the mass murder of Christians in the Middle East by blaming then-candidate Trump for saying that we need to keep terrorists out of America. “Words matter,” Levin sneered, meaning: ‘words by Trump denouncing terrorism matter more than killing thousands of Christians in the Middle East matters.’

The hate crimes industry has struggled mightily to deflect blame for terrorist acts here and abroad onto Trump and other Western politicians. During the election, they kept hoping Trump supporters would commit hate crimes so they could change the subject from the real mass murders being committed by Islamists and the garden-variety crimes committed daily in cities like Chicago.

But Trump supporters did not commit hate crimes.

So the hate crimes industry simply went out and manufactured imaginary hate crimes committed by imaginary Trump supporters. They also blamed anti-Trump graffiti on Trump supporters. When graffiti linking Trump to Hitler appeared in several places, like O.J. Simpson, the hate crime experts announced they were looking for the identity of the real hate criminals, but really, they just called Trump supporters anti-Semites.

And when incident after incident was exposed as a bunch of nasty, actionable hoaxes committed by leftists, the hate crimes industry kept blaming even the hoaxes, along with the bomb threats and racist graffiti committed by other leftists on Trump and his supporters.

If only they could get away with it, Levin and his peers would doubtlessly go whole hog, and the headlines this week would read: “4 Historically Culpable Men Killed by Reciprocal Violence.”

Conservatives who argue that hate crime laws might someday be enforced equally are missing the point.

Hate crime laws are intentionally designed to create hierarchies of victims, and they are intentionally enforced – but only to advance leftist hate. Occasionally the experts have to admit that a hate crime was committed against whites, but then they turn the blame back on white society anyway.

The hate crime activist lynch mob isn’t going to mend its ways, and why should they? It’s a great gig.

The only way to fix hate crime laws is to repeal them and return to the proper legal standard of equal justice for all.

Then people like Brian Levin will have to get honest work, or at least stop spreading his socially sanctioned hatreds on the taxpayer’s dime.

Tina Trent writes about crime and policing, political radicals, social service programs, and academia. She has published several reports for America’s Survival and helped the late Larry Grathwohl release a new edition of his 1976 memoir, “Bringing Down America: An FBI Informer with the Weathermen,” an account of his time infiltrating the Weather Underground.

Dr. Trent received a doctorate from the Institute for Women’s Studies of Emory University, where she wrote about the devastating impact of social justice movements on criminal law under the tutelage of conservative, pro-life scholar Elizabeth Fox-Genovese.

Dr. Trent spent more than a decade working in Atlanta’s worst neighborhoods, providing social services to refugees, troubled families, and crime victims. There, she witnessed the destruction of families by the poverty industry, an experience she describes as: “the reason I’m now a practicing Catholic and social conservative.”

Tina lives with her husband on a farm in North Georgia. She blogs about crime and politics at tinatrent.com.

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban. -- Follow these instructions on registering:

Canada Free Press

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement